[ View Full Version Of This Page ]

Election determines fate of nation

All Forums » Off Topic » Election determines fate of nation

Pages: [1] 2
indy85_starion
10/19/2004 7:14:13 PM
http://www.kvnews.com/articles/2004/10/19/manweller%20column/manweller%20column.txt

Election determines fate of nation

Published in the Daily Record on Oct. 6
By Mathew Manweller

Due to the high demand for this column, the Daily Record has decided to post it online. It is normally not the paper's policy to post opinion columns or editorials online. This column will remain on the site until Oct. 27. Should you want to purchase a print copy of it, please call (509) 925-1414. This content is owned by the Daily Record.

In that this will be my last column before the presidential election, there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high.

This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence.

Down the other lies a nation that is aware of it's past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold. First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big of a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations.

The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from whom we are.

Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well-learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America. Twenty-four-hour news stations and daily tracing polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow. Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grisly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland.

It is said that America's W.W.II generation is its 'greatest generation'. But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's 'last generation.' Born in the bleakness of the Great depression and hardened in the fire of W.W. II, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation. Too many citizens today mistake 'living in America' as 'being an American.' But America has always been more of an idea than a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilities.

This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp the obligation that comes with being an American, or fade into the oblivion they may deserve. I believe that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill."

Mathew Manweller is a Central Washington University political science professor.
Lugnut
10/19/2004 8:22:42 PM
Oh, gee. You copied a newspaper article. And you also provided a link to the very same article you copied. Pretty clever, dude.
GermanStar
10/19/2004 8:42:08 PM
quote:

ORIGINAL: indy85_starion

Published in the Daily Record on Oct. 6
By Mathew Manweller

Hey Matthew -- can you spell "z e a l o t" ?

You know, I saw a poll yesterday that indicated that 62% of republicans believe that Iraq was linked to 9/11 even though the current administration openly admits that no such link exists. What could explain such a thing? Scratching head.....
Lugnut
10/19/2004 9:21:35 PM
According to a poll, 100% of weenie liberals think Saddam was a sweet guy who should have been treated with a global coalition of sensitivity. The same poll shows that these weenies would like to see Saddam sentenced to six or eight weeks of community service as punishment for being the Butcher of Baghdad and international supporter of terrorism. They figure that'll show him.
GermanStar
10/19/2004 9:38:22 PM
Oh, you're being too hard on yourself (I saw evidence on another thread that you're now voting for Kerry) . A simple "I don't know" would have sufficed.
Lugnut
10/20/2004 4:02:01 AM
Your poll means nothing. I don't think you grasp that. It was a poll taken by and for liberals to advance a liberal talking point. Can you spell "b i a s e d?"

To me it's more incredible that the liberals keep insisting there's no connection between Saddam and 9/11. Why do they keep insisting this when no one ever said there was a connection?
GermanStar
10/20/2004 10:01:24 AM
I guess you missed the first debate, when Bush said that the Iraq invasion was a direct response to Saddam's 9/11 attack. Kerry then corrected him and Bush found it necessary to inform the American people that he did in fact know who Osama bin Laden is... It was really hysterical!

The current administration has worked hard to connect Iraq to 9/11 from day one and were unconcerned about the facts. Hell, Rumsfeld wanted to attack Iraq in direct response to 9/11 ("there are no good targets in Afghanistan")......
GermanStar
10/20/2004 12:30:06 PM
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lugnut

Your poll means nothing. I don't think you grasp that. It was a poll taken by and for liberals to advance a liberal talking point. Can you spell "b i a s e d?"


Yes, the numbers may be inflated, but I believe the point is valid -- that a curiously high percentage of Americans believe that there is a direct link. I also believe that the majority of these folks are probably conservative republicans. There is only one possible explanation that I can think of. Can you spell (I'm sure you can) "d e n i a l"?
Lugnut
10/20/2004 4:05:26 PM
Well, I did have to leave the TV room and go pee a couple of times during the first debate. I don't know why Bush said that. That's never been the administrations claim as far as I can remember. Maybe it was that bulge on his back speaking.

But anyway, you say these "poll" numbers are just "feelings" you have. Now I understand. You adjust a biased poll by your feelings. Then, when someone states that your numbers are biased, you claim they're in denial. That can only make sense to a liberal moonbat.
GermanStar
10/20/2004 4:46:30 PM
You sure are good at duckin'!

Two sources -- each from over a year ago (you can tell me why that matters later) -- neither source is particularly liberal...

CS Monitor

USA Today
Lugnut
10/20/2004 7:16:27 PM
Roundhouse punches are easy to duck.

You're reading a bunch into two opinion pieces that try pretty hard to prove a preconceived notion. Just as that approach is bad science, it's also bad journalism. You can't take many things over a period of time out of context and expect to draw a single picture of the truth that supports what you've already decided. It makes you look weak.
Lugnut
10/20/2004 8:20:53 PM
The USA took, and is taking, tough action against terrorists and those countries that support or harbor terrorists after the 9/11 attacks. That's what you keep twisting to support your inane argument.

It doesn't mean the USA is at war with only the 9/11 attack planners and that we can retire after bin Laden is snuffed. Nor does it mean that Saddam had any direct involvement with the 9/11 attacks, no matter what Bush said in a debate or what newspaper articles you dig up. We are at war with all terrorists who would do us harm on our soil.
GermanStar
10/20/2004 10:15:51 PM
I'm sorry, but the justification for the mass murder of tens of thousands of people because they "might" be a threat to us some day is despicable. I ain't buyin' it.
Lugnut
10/20/2004 10:40:50 PM
"... mass murder of tens of thousands of people... "

You are a simple-minded sand clown. I'm not crying for our enemies. You can if you want to. Better we kill "tens of thousands" of terrorists, you cluck, than they come here and kill us. Geez, man. What's the matter with you?

Are you related to Sean Penn?
GermanStar
10/20/2004 10:59:29 PM
American soldiers are terrorists? Each and every Iraqi citizen is a terrorist? Those are the people that are dying. These people weren't our enemies -- they posed no threat whatsoever to the U.S. We're in someone else's store minding someone else's business, creating the next generation of terrorists right now, and our children will likely pay the price. And we're doing this instead of dealing with the real terrorist nations such as Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Where's the logic in wasting resources and lives against a non-combatant? Where's the logic in turning a non-combatant into an combatant?
GermanStar
10/20/2004 11:51:48 PM
Oh, to hell with it -- on to more important things -- the Red Sox finally get past the Yankees!
indy85_starion
10/21/2004 1:34:17 AM
quote:

ORIGINAL: GermanStar

You know, I saw a poll yesterday that indicated that 62% of republicans believe that Iraq was linked to 9/11...


For good reason too! Republicans tend to look beyond the headlines and read the whole article.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast.../rumsfeld.iraq/

The headlines say "No Link Between Iraq and al-Qaida!" However, what the 9/11 Commission really said -- that they came to the conclusion that there was no collaborative effort between Iraq and al-Qaida on the 9/11 attacks.

Reports of subsequent contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan “do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,”

However, the 9/11 Commission Report has listed numerous instances where Hussein and bin Laden had been in communication with each other. Among those were concerns expressed by Clinton's counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke.

In February 1999, according to the report, the CIA wanted to conduct U-2 surveillance missions over bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan. However, Clarke was worried that doing so might scare bin Laden into leaving the country — and going to Iraq. If that happened, the report says, Clarke feared that bin Laden's "entire network would be at Saddam Hussein's service"

YES -- Hussein and bin Laden were in communication with each other.
YES -- Huesein posed a threat to the United States.

Back in September of 2001, Bush warned us of a long war against terrorism. He asked for our patience and unwavering commitment. I gave him my trust, then. I give him my trust, now.
Lugnut
10/21/2004 5:35:42 AM
You're beginning to babble as if you're in a drug-induced stupor. You come up with some really assinine stuff. You're a very confused American.

Or, are you American? The people I hear speak as you do are either anti-American extreme leftist screechers, Arab Muslims, or Hollywood airheads. You worry me.

Do you believe Michael Moore is a great historian who has imbued us with many facts?
GermanStar
10/21/2004 9:06:36 AM
quote:

ORIGINAL: indy85_starion

For good reason too! Republicans tend to look beyond the headlines and read the whole article.

Have you ever heard of inventing a cure and then looking for the disease? CIBA did it with Ritalin. I swear, if this guy's a shill, I played no part.
GermanStar
10/21/2004 9:10:13 AM
Yes, I know how hard it is to deal with logic, but look at the post above yours. There's your run-of-the-mill Iraq war supporter...
GermanStar
10/21/2004 9:16:30 AM
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lugnut

You're beginning to babble as if you're in a drug-induced stupor. You come up with some really assinine stuff. You're a very confused American.

Yes, me and a 100,000,000 other Americans -- we're all confused, no insane...
Lugnut
10/21/2004 1:00:10 PM
Hey, don't forget. Your man Bob Woodward said there was a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda. I don't doubt that there was since they shared the same goals. Certainly, there were connections with international terrorists. But I still and never did claim that Saddam perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. Nonetheless, it doesn't matter.

Do you fantasize about a manage trois with Barbra Streisand and Susan Sarandon? You three have a lot in common.
GermanStar
10/21/2004 2:20:06 PM
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lugnut

Hey, don't forget. Your man Bob Woodward said there was a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda. I don't doubt that there was since they shared the same goals.

I don't doubt it. There's also a connection between the bin Laden and Bush families -- that doesn't mean that any of the Bush clan was complicit with the crime. As you said, in and of itself, it's meaningless.
Lugnut
10/21/2004 4:19:25 PM
No, you're wrong about 100,000,00 Americans thinking the same way you do. Do you really believe that 50% of Americans think American soldiers are commiting mass murder against American soldiers? We're fighting terrorists, not commiting mass murder of Iraqi citizens. Its' the terrorists that are killing the citizens.

You spout extremist speech of the worst kind. 50% of Americans are not lunatic extremists, even if they disagree with everything Bush does or says. You are a lefty kook and a member of a small fringe group. John Ashcroft will be calling on you shortly.
GermanStar
10/21/2004 4:45:28 PM
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lugnut

Do you really believe that 50% of Americans think American soldiers are commiting mass murder against American soldiers?

No, and that's a rather bizarre interpretation...... The only terrorists in Iraq are those that were drawn by our presence there. I know you prefer warfare and mayhem to peace, but the people whose lives we've ended and displaced in Iraq were just minding their own business before we kicked the door down for no good reason. I recall a few months ago you thought this would all be over by now. With the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds at each others' throats, we may still be there a generation from now. And if you think that our presence isn't fodder to create the next wave of terrorists, you're fooling yourself. After all, we've now proven our intent to impose our way of life upon them -- a way of life they find despicable. These people have as much right to live their lives free of heavy-handed American interference as we have to be free of theirs. Think about it...
Pages: [1] 2

[ View Full Version Of This Page ]

Return to the Mercedes Forum home page - Archive Home